2021 (4) TMI 1272 - SCH - Money Laundering

Direction for enquiry to an independent agency - HELD THAT - In view of the nature of allegations the personas involved and the seriousness of the allegations do require an independent agency to enquire into the matter. It is a matter of public confidence given the factual scenario. We are unable to accept the contentions of Dr. A.M. Singhvi learned senior counsel that merely because the Home Minister has resigned after the impugned order would be a factor not to direct enquiry by an independent agency. The two personas held post of Home Minister and Commissioner of Police for a long period and the latter would be a post of confidence of the former. Further we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Kapil Sibal learned senior counsel that even for directing a preliminary enquiry the petitioner Mr. Anil Deshmukh is mandatorily entitled to be heard in his individual capacity even though the State Government was represented and he was a Minister at that time. SLP dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Permission to file Special Leave Petitions (SLPs); Need for an independent agency to investigate allegations; Relevance of resignation of Home Minister; Right of the petitioner to be heard in a preliminary enquiry.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court granted permission to file Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in a specific matter. The Court emphasized the importance of having an independent agency investigate the allegations due to the nature of the accusations, the individuals involved, and the seriousness of the claims. The Court highlighted the significance of public confidence in such scenarios and clarified that the directed enquiry is only a preliminary one conducted by an independent body.

The Court rejected the argument that the resignation of the Home Minister following the impugned order should prevent an investigation by an independent agency. It noted the long tenures of the Home Minister and the Commissioner of Police, highlighting the relationship between the two positions. Additionally, the Court dismissed the contention that the petitioner must be heard individually in a preliminary enquiry, even though the State Government was represented, and the petitioner held a ministerial position at the time.

Based on the reasons provided, the Court decided not to interfere with the impugned orders and subsequently dismissed the special leave petitions. Consequently, the application for intervention in related matters was closed, and pending applications were disposed of as per the Court's decision.